Reward And Recognition

There are mixed views as to whether organisations need to introduce separate rewards to encourage knowledge building and sharing. Where organisations have introduced a competency framework that includes knowledge building and sharing behaviours, and this is linked to the performance management system, then in theory there doesn’t seem to be any need to have a separate reward system. However, where the performance management system does not allow for equal weighting to be given to the ‘How’ as well as the ‘What’ element of an individual’s performance, then this can run counter to building a knowledge-centric culture. In environments where individuals are under pressure to meet revenue/sales targets there is a danger that performance reviews focus purely on ‘hard’ targets, rather than taking into consideration an individual’s knowledge contribution.

Another school of thought, however, is that rewards for knowledge sharing and reuse, in particular, should be more immediate, and be of a more public nature, as this acts as an incentive to both the receiver, and perhaps more importantly to others, that this type of behaviour is important to the organisation.

The experience of R&D organisations suggests that a mixture of rewards are needed to motivate knowledge workers, such as scientists and engineers. These include: equitable salary structures; profit-sharing or equity-based rewards; a variety of employee benefits; flexibility over working time and location, as well as being given credit for significant pieces of work (Jain and Triandis, 1997). Where organisations expect their knowledge workers to participate in Communities of Practice it may also be appropriate to consider some form of reward for individuals who are prepared to invest considerable amounts of their own time in building the community’s knowledge base and/or keep the community alive.

Bearing in mind the factors that motivate knowledge workers, discussed in Chapter 7, non-financial rewards, in the form of ‘free time’ to work on knowledge-building projects, may be more motivating for some, than monetary rewards. Within DERA, for example, individuals who are widely recognised as being a leading expert in a particular area, can be awarded up to 15,000, to spend on conferences, purchasing a particular piece of equipment that could enhance their work, or buy some time to spend working on a project which is of personal interest to them (Evans, 2000).

What seems important from these different examples is having a flexible reward strategy that provides a balance between organisational and individual needs, and where individuals have some element of choice over the rewards and benefits they receive. Some technology companies, for example, make it possible for employees to trade salary for extra holiday. This approach enables individuals to invest more time in knowledgebuilding activities, such as research and writing, going on a short study tour, attending an international conference, or to create much needed thinking time. Why would individuals want to do this? – because they see the importance of investing in their own intellectual capital.

As the demand for certain categories of knowledge workers intensifies organisations will need to become more creative in their approach to rewarding these individuals. How many organisations, for example, would allow one of their knowledge workers to take up an opportunity that allowed them to combine their love of athletics with applying their existing technology skills by providing IT support at the Commonwealth Games^[1]?

As Richard Scase (2002), points out, if organisations want to nurture creativity they need to reward employees in such a way that they have a stakeholder interest in the innovative outcomes, for example through part ownership of patents, or ensuring professional recognition. The new Enterprise Management

Incentive (EMI) schemes may be another way of motivating and rewarding knowledge workers, or indeed any employees who contribute to enhanced business performance. EMI schemes provide employees with the opportunity to acquire share options, which can be cashed in if the organisation floats at some future point. This type of scheme seems to offer real potential in the SME sector, where the business has strong growth potential.

Given the critical need for learning today, another reward option could be to consider introducing a ‘Learning Time’ scheme, similar to the ‘Matched Time’ scheme that some organisations have introduced as part of their commitment to supporting community work (see Chapter 6). This type of scheme would enable individuals who demonstrate a commitment to continuous learning to be awarded extra learning time, which they could use to invest in further learning activities. This would be one way of addressing the generic versus specific intellectual capital dilemma discussed earlier.

Another area to consider is that of discretionary, or one-off rewards, which managers, or teams, could use to acknowledge specific knowledge contributions as a way of encouraging others to make similar contributions. The HR community within BT Global, for example, award a bottle of champagne each month to the person in the team who is the most prolific user of other people’s ideas (fully accredited of course). BP runs a ‘Thief of the year’ award, which goes to the person who has stolen the best ideas in applications development. Allied Domecq, a national drinks company, makes a point of promoting and rewarding good examples of knowledge re-use at its annual staff conference.

^[1]A day in the life of a Games technology volunteer. Computing 25 July 2002.